That is the topic question for a research project I've had to do for school, so you know my research is half-arsed and half-hearted to extremes hopefully unknown to my teacher.

So far, what I have been able to come up with was the conclusion that religion has, by the views of others, a vital role in modern society (within Australian society more specifically, as I've only really spoken to a few fellow Australians personally in pseudo-great detail, however, through the web, my assumption seems to be fairly supported.

My conclusion thus far has been that religion here, and in the rest of the First World has largely relegated itself to a societal-personal support mechanism, as opposed as to the controlling bodies it formed centuries prior. Of course, there are some hold-out factions who try to subvert Governments, which have largely taken over for religion in society, with the exception of support mechanisms, which most governments would not be able to tackle alone anyway at the current time.
Of course, in referring to "support mechanisms" I am referring to religions' stranglehold of community (You can't deny it, they have perfected their shit when it comes to providing a safe, comfy community feeling for believers) and their virtual monopoly on charities, at least they have one here, with a significant amount of larger charities being under the Christian banner.
Which is why I have come to the conclusion that religions (at the very least, Christian ones) have adopted supporting rather than ruling by providing economic, mental/emotional and "spiritual" support to those in need or want, which most governments cannot currently take over fully without over-extending themselves.

I want to know, what do you guys think about this whole mess?

In your eyes; What do you think religions do in modern societies, to what role does it cast itself? Is what they're doing vital, or could they be easily replaced or removed?

sorry if this doesn't make much sense... I am writing at 4:40 in the morning. It's easier to do stiff late at night.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.

I'd agree about social support group function, but I also think it's tribalism and ingroup/outgroup stuff, basically, "My tribe is better than your tribe, god favors us, we're going to heaven." This allows Christians to look down on Jews, but also Protestants to look down on Catholics. Everybody has their own little clique and feels they are god's chosen ones. I think a lot of it is a human desire to think your group is better than those people over there. It's like white supremacy, they didn't choose to be born white, but since they were born with light skin, they think that's the best skin color to have and makes them better than other people. Likewise, Christians are born into xianity, told that god loves them more than other people, etc. In short, i think it feeds into primitive desires to think your group is better than other groups.

I think it's complicated by humans' tendency to cognitive error and indoctrination. Everybody is capable of feeling awe and wonder sometimes, but Christians are taught that this feeling is supernatural and proves their god's existence. So everyone interprets things differently, which further enforces the cliqueishness of the whole thing.

Thanks for the reply, Amyb. I hadn't considered the tribalistic aspect of religions. Going to have to think about that.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.

(21-05-2013 01:10 PM)Free Thought Wrote: Which is why I have come to the conclusion that religions (at the very least, Christian ones) have adopted supporting rather than ruling by providing economic, mental/emotional and "spiritual" support to those in need or want, which most governments cannot currently take over fully without over-extending themselves.

Hm, like the influence of religious groups in the US who are trying to get several states to approve a bill to give "personhood" to a fetus? I hope that mental/emotional and spiritual support religion offers will help women who are charged with manslaughter when they miscarry.

Whether at the individual level or the state level, the role of religion in modern societies is the same as it ever was; to manipulate so that control and the acceptance of control is maintained.

Was that too mean?

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein

(21-05-2013 01:10 PM)Free Thought Wrote: Which is why I have come to the conclusion that religions (at the very least, Christian ones) have adopted supporting rather than ruling by providing economic, mental/emotional and "spiritual" support to those in need or want, which most governments cannot currently take over fully without over-extending themselves.

Hm, like the influence of religious groups in the US who are trying to get several states to approve a bill to give "personhood" to a fetus? I hope that mental/emotional and spiritual support religion offers will help women who are charged with manslaughter when they miscarry.

Whether at the individual level or the state level, the role of religion in modern societies is the same as it ever was; to manipulate so that control and the acceptance of control is maintained.

Was that too mean?

I was just about to say something similar.

Religion was and is still used to control people. Look into cults and how they acquire their members and keep them from leaving. Religious groups do the same thing, and most cults are religious in nature.

(21-05-2013 01:53 PM)Free Thought Wrote: Thanks for the reply, Amyb. I hadn't considered the tribalistic aspect of religions. Going to have to think about that.

I was raised in a Catholic family, so I'm going to use that as an example. Certainly, Xians, Jews, and Muslims all have some things in common, but different sects of Christianity have a LOT in common. So much that it's hard for a nonchristian to see the differences, yet they still have an allegiance to THEIR sect. Kind of like people with a favorite football team.

I was in Sunday school and I remember a teacher telling us about how some people don't think Catholics are Christian, and that if someone says that, we should correct them on the matter. I see Christianity as kind of like the National Football League, and different sects are different teams, and everybody thinks their team is best.

But why would a Baptist think a Catholic was doing religion wrong? Answer: In group/out group. If they're not on your team, they're doing it wrong and going to hell, even if they believe the exact same thing you believe with very minor differences. I know not all christians make a big deal of that, but some do, and I've seen a lot of dislike of Catholics.

ETA: and I agree with those who said it's still used to control people. I'd also say it keeps people doing what the religion tells them to, discourages deviation from the norm, tells you that thinking is bad,and so on.

(21-05-2013 01:10 PM)Free Thought Wrote: Which is why I have come to the conclusion that religions (at the very least, Christian ones) have adopted supporting rather than ruling by providing economic, mental/emotional and "spiritual" support to those in need or want, which most governments cannot currently take over fully without over-extending themselves.

Hm, like the influence of religious groups in the US who are trying to get several states to approve a bill to give "personhood" to a fetus? I hope that mental/emotional and spiritual support religion offers will help women who are charged with manslaughter when they miscarry.

Whether at the individual level or the state level, the role of religion in modern societies is the same as it ever was; to manipulate so that control and the acceptance of control is maintained.

Was that too mean?

No it wasn't too mean. My state voted it down back in 2011 even though the personhood PAC thought they had a slam dunk here. It scared the crap out of me, and I got several conservative Christians to vote against because of the medical and legal ramifications. That's a prime example of one purpose of religion being to control people and seemingly wishing that all we women would just shut up and be brood mares.